On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
<gnu_and...@member.fsf.org> wrote:
> On 6 June 2011 18:22, Paul C. Bryan <pbr...@anode.ca> wrote:
>> Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late in the game—real life has been
>> demanding much of my time lately.
>>
>> I would suggest the test could boil-down to whether a new artist work AR is
>> required to distinguish one remix from another (if a particular remix
>> contains new content, and has additional composer/lyricist/etc. credit). If
>> so, then a separate (but related) work would seem to be in order. If not,
>> then the original work would be used.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> Pretty much what I think too. It has the benefit of being a very
> straight-forward test based on clear technical grounds (do I need an
> AR specific to this mix --> Yes, add a new work).
> Now it would be nice if we actually had a work to work remix AR to go
> with that...
Make an RFC for it then ;)
("Do I need an AR specific to this mix OR does this mix have its own
ISWC" would be my test though)
>> Paul
>>
>> On Sun, 2011-05-29 at 08:42 +0200, Kuno Woudt wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 26/05/11 10:49, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>> On 26 May 2011 07:00, Stephen<tungolcra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On May 25, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think what these need is for a cover recording to be able to link
>>>>> back to either a work or a recording.
>>>>> At the moment, it seems I can't do a recording<->recording cover link
>>>>> but funnily enough
>>>>> I can do a recording<->recording AR for a remix...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A recording--recording link makes sense for a remix, because usually a
>>>> remix is actually a differently edited version of the same recorded
>>>> audio
>>>
>>> I agree. That's why I don't think they should be new works.
>>
>> I think the keyword in the above statement is "usually". Perhaps most
>> remixes fit this description, but there are also cases where a track
>> is reworked so thoroughly it's more akin to a new track which uses a
>> few samples from the old one.
>>
>> From that perspective I would prefer to allow both. But that of course
>> invites edit-note bickering about whether a particular remix constitutes
>> a new work or not.
>>
>> Perhaps only allow works for remixes if the liner notes specify certain
>> roles for artists which differ from the original work and can only be
>> represented with work relationships.
>>
>> -- kuno / warp.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Andii :-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
